Radeon 760M vs FirePro W7100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W7100 with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.
W7100 outperforms 760M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 418 | 444 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 75 |
| Power efficiency | 7.17 | 65.70 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (12 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 920 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2599 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.0 | 83.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.297 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 2 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | Motherboard Dependent |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| HD сomponent video output | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 30−35
+3.4%
| 29
−3.4%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
+0%
| 18
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W7100 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:
- FirePro W7100 is 3% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.91 | 12.74 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 15 Watt |
FirePro W7100 has a 9% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 760M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 2567% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FirePro W7100 and Radeon 760M.
Be aware that FirePro W7100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 760M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
